Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.@mdashAppellant, who is a practising Advocate, has filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing to grant interim relief and disposed of the petition on merits.
2. Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, by consent, we have heard the learned Counsel on both sides, on the merits of the matter and disposed of the same by this judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are,--
The appellant is the owner of a Hero Honda vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-04-H-236. On 23-7-1994 while the appellant was coming on the Bannerghatta Road in Bangalore, the 5th respondent stopped the vehicle and asked him to produce the driving licence, Insurance Certificate, Registration Certificate, etc. As he was not carrying the said documents, he could not produce the same, when demanded. The appellant received a notice in Form No. 298 (vii) stating that he had violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and directed him to appear before the Traffic Court on 30-7-1994. The appellant while challenging the said notice, sought a writ in the nature of mandamus striking down Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') insofar as it relates to the production of the driving licence, immediately on demand made by the police officer in uniform, as unconstitutional. Consequently, he sought for quashing of notice in Annexure-A dated 23-7-1994.
4. The Counsel for the appellant contended that the power given to the police or other Authorities u/s 130 of the Act is without any guidelines and therefore, it is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. When a person is driving a vehicle, if he fails to produce other documents than driving licence when demanded by a concerned officer, he can produce the same within two weeks before the concerned authority. But as far as the driving licence is concerned, no such provision is made in the Statute, it has to be produced immediately. It is further contended that Central Rule 139 of the Rules framed under the Act envisages that where it is not possible to produce the Insurance Certificate, Driving Licence and Fitness Certificate, the same-can be produced or sent to the concerned authority within two weeks. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, non-production of the driving licence on the spot will amount to committing an offence resulting in issuing notice for prosecution before the Court. Therefore, he contends that Section 130 of the Act has to be declared as unconstitutional or alternatively Rule 139 must be read as part and parcel of Section 130 of the Act.
5. The learned Government Advocate contended that the provisions of the Act govern the regulation of traffic made for the safety of the vehicular traffic on the roads in public interest. The requirement of the driver of the vehicle to produce the driving licence immediately on demand is for the purpose of checking whether the vehicle is driven by a competent person having a valid licence. It is also the experience of the police and other related authorities that vehicles are found driven by persons, without having valid driving licence, which resulted in number of accidents. It is further contended that driving of motor vehicles has become a kind of fashion or prestige in the society. To maintain the safety, to avoid accidents and to control the traffic system, provisions are made under the Act and the Rules framed thereafter. Therefore, there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional.
6. Further, the contention that the requirement of production of the driving licence, immediately on demand, by a police officer in uniform, cannot be said to be discriminatory, unreasonable or arbitrary. The learned Single Judge has elaborately considered all these contentions raised before him by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition.
7. In view of the above contentions, the important questions that arise for our consideration are:
(i)Whether Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is unconstitutional?
(ii)Whether notice issued in Form No. 298(vii) is liable to be quashed?
8. To appreciate the above contentions, it is apposite to refer some of the relevant provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 defines ''driving licence'', means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. Sub-section (9) of the Act refers to ''driver'', includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is driven by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the driven vehicle. ''Owner'' is defined under sub-section (30) of Section 2, which means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. Sub-section (34) of Section 2 defines ''Public Place'', means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage.
9. Section 3 of the Act envisages that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicles. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles. Section 5 obligates responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of Sections 3 and 4. Section 9 prescribes how to obtain the driving licence and Section 15 provides for renewing of the driving licence. Section 16 empowers the Licensing authority to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence, apart from conviction and sentence, where a person is convicted in a case. Section 21 and Section 22 deal with the cancellation of the licence by concerned authority. Section 23 deals with the effect of disqualification of the licence. Section 25 provides transfer of endorsement and issue of driving licence free from endorsement. Section 26 of the Act provides maintenance of State Registers of Driving Licences.
10. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with the control of traffic. Section 112 deals with the limits of speed of the motor vehicles and Section 113 deals with limits of weight and limitations on use. Section 115 empowers the State Government to restrict the use of the vehicles. Section 116 empowers the State Government to erect traffic signals. Section 117 prescribes for parking places and halting stations. Section 118 empowers the Central Government to make regulations for the driving of motor vehicles. Section 119 obligates to obey the traffic signals. Section 121 obligates the driver of a motor vehicle to make such signals and on such occasions, as may be prescribed by the rules. Section 128 envisages safety measures to be taken by the drivers and pillion riders of two wheeled motor cycles. Section 129 obligates for wearing of protective head-gear by two wheelers.
11. Section 130 of the Act, which is now under challenge, obligates the driver of a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on demand by any police officer in uniform, produce his licence for examination. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Act envisages that the driver may, if his licence has been submitted to, or has been seized by, any officer or authority under this or any other Act, produce in lieu of the licence a receipt or other acknowledgment issued by such officer or authority in respect thereof and thereafter produce the driving licence in the manner provided. Sub-section (3) of Section 130 of the Act (Act No. 54 of 1994) envisages that the owner of a motor vehicle (other than a vehicle registered u/s 60), or in his absence the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle, shall, on demand by a registering authority or any other officer of the Motor Vehicles Department duly authorised in this behalf, produce the certificate of insurance of the vehicle and, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness referred to in Section 56 and the permit; and if any or all of the certificates or the permit; are not in his possession, he, shall, within fifteen days from the date of demand submit photo copies of the same, duly attested in person or send the same by registered post to the officer who demanded it. Sub-section (4) envisages that if the licence referred to in sub-section (2) or the certificates or permit referred to in sub-section (3), as the case may he, are not at the time in the possession of the person to whom demand is made, if he produces the same within such period in the manner prescribed by the Central Government, it shall be a sufficient compliance. Section 132 obligates that the driver of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to stop and remain stationary for reasonable time, when required by the police officer, where the vehicle is suspected to have involved in the occurrence of an accident to a person, animal or vehicle or of damage to property and he shall give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle to any person affected by any such accident or damage. Section 134 envisages the duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person. Section 137 empowers the Central Government to make rules regarding the manner in which the licences and certificates may be produced to the police officer u/s 130. Section 138 empowers the State Government to make rules, except the rules specified in Section 137. Rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides for production of licence and certificate of registration etc.
12. Section 177 of the Act provides for punishment of offences for violation of the provisions of the Act and the rules. Section 180 provides, where the owner allows driving of a vehicle by an unauthorised person, he is liable for punishment, who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act. Section 181 makes it clear that whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 is liable for punishment. Section 183 deals with the driving of the vehicle at excessive speed. Section 184 deals with the driving dangerously, i.e., in a rash and negligent manner. Section 185 refers to driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. Section 186 deals with the driving, when mentally or physically he is unfit to drive. Section 187 deals with the punishment for offences relating to accident. Section 190 deals with the using of the vehicle in unsafe condition. Section 192 deals with using vehicle without registration and Section 192-A deals with using vehicle without valid permit.
13. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act contemplated a comprehensive scheme to regulate and control the traffic in the interest of public safety. The grant of a driving licence to a qualified person, to drive the vehicle for the period prescribed therein, shall be cancelled if there are violations of the provisions of the Act or conditions stipulated therein. The limit of speed of motor vehicles, to restrict the movement of the motor vehicles and to follow the traffic signals by the drivers of the vehicles are all for safety measures. The Act also provides punishment for violation of the provisions of the Act, including the drivers who contravenes the provisions of the Act, i.e., for excessive speed or driving the vehicle without licence, or driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or driving the vehicles by drunken persons.
14. Section 130 of the Act, which envisages the driver to produce the driving licence immediately on demand by a police officer in uniform is incorporated in the Act to ensure that the persons who are driving the vehicles possess valid driving licence. It is common that theft of motor vehicles is committed and taken away the same, in which case, unless there is a procedure ensuring the person who drives the vehicle to produce the driving licence, it is not possible to find out whether actually he has got a valid driving licence or not. In the interest of the society, to avoid accidents on roads and to regulate the traffic, and to ensure safety of the public, these provisions are incorporated.
15. The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 made by the Central Government, in regard to the manner of production of the licence is as per Section 137 of the Act. As per that, Rule 139 of the rules is framed. u/s 130 of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the driver to produce the driving licence on the spot whereas the conductor and owner of the vehicle can produce the conductor''s licence and vehicle registration certificate and certificate of insurance of the vehicle and also fitness certificate on demand, if they are in possession immediately, or they can produce the same in the manner prescribed by the rules. Rule 139 envisages that such documents can be produced within a period of two weeks. The legislature has made a distinction between the drivers as a class and the conductors and owners of the vehicle, or representative of the owner of the vehicle, another class. In case of drivers, they have to produce the driving licence immediately on demand; whereas in the case of conductors and owners, or representatives of the owners, if any, can produce the same immediately or within a period of two weeks as envisaged under Rule 139 of the Rules.
16. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that this is discriminatory and therefore, Rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
17. It is relevant here to refer the observations of the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench of 7 Judges) in Ram Krishna Dalmia v Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others, thus:
". . . . It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification. . .. ".
The principle enunciated above has been consistently adopted and applied in subsequent cases and laid down the following principles:
(a)that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself;
(b)that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles".
18. We have now examined Section 130 of the Act keeping in view, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. The above section makes a classification of drivers as one class and conductors and owners or their representative as other class. The two classes of people are quite different. If driver''s duty is to drive the vehicle, he must have a driving licence with him always; whereas in the case of the owner of the vehicle, he has to get his vehicle registered and get a registration certificate; insure the vehicle and also to obtain a fitness certificate. The duties performing are also quite different from the duties of the conductor or owner. Both do not belong to the same class. Therefore, the classification is based on intelligible differentia and there is also nexus between the basis of the classification and object of the Act. The driver is obligated to produce driving licence immediately on demand as the authority concerned has to satisfy that the vehicles are driven by persons holding a valid licence; whereas in other cases the danger is not so imminent as the vehicle is driven by a person without a valid licence. If a vehicle is driven by a person not fully qualified, then there will be a chance of causing accident or violation of traffic rules, which may not only cause the impediment of the flow of the traffic but results in injury to both the persons involved in the accident. If the conductor or owner of the vehicle is not having the required licence or certificates, the result will not be so grave as that of a driver driving the vehicle without valid licence. Therefore, there is a nexus between the basis of the classification adopted between the drivers and other class. Further, the object to achieve is to see that the traffic is regulated properly avoiding accidents and to control crime of theft of the vehicles and avoiding other offences under the Act. Therefore, the classification cannot be said to be discriminatory.
19. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Pathumma and Others v State of Kerala and Others, for the proposition where there is no nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the conferred power is arbitrary and discriminatory. In the instant case, the power conferred on the police officer u/s 130 of the Act cannot be said to be without any nexus to the object sought to be achieved being the regulation of traffic for the safety of the vehicular traffic and public. Therefore, the above decision is not at all applicable to the case on hand. The learned Counsel also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v DTC Mazdoor Congress and Others , State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v Baldeo Prasad, New Delhi Municipal Committee v State of Punjab, "Common Cause, a Registered Society through its Director v Union of India and Others, P.N. Kaushal v Union of India and Others and Avinder Singh and Others v State of Punjab, for the same proposition. There is no dispute in the principles laid down in the above cited decisions, but the same will not apply to the facts of the present case.
20. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, conferment of power, obligating the drivers for production of the driving licence, is arbitrary, as there are no guidelines. In that aspect, Section 130 of the Act obligates the driver to produce the driving licence immediately on demand. Failure to produce the same is violative of Section 130 of the Act, which attracts an offence under the Act and a prosecution can be launched against him. Though there is an obligation on the part of the driver for production of the driving licence, immediately on demand, failure to produce the driving licence would amount to an offence under the Act. The concerned authority, in such an event, has to launch prosecution against the driver according to law, i.e., the authority would follow the provisions of the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once the procedure is followed, there is an opportunity to the delinquent to defend his case and explain the same before the Traffic Court and adduce evidence and show to the Court that there is no mens rea. In such cases, the Court will hear the matter and pass appropriate orders. Hence it cannot be said that there is no procedure prescribed and the power conferred is arbitrary.
21. The learned Counsel then contended that as per Rule 139 of the rules framed by the Central Government prescribing the manner of the production of the licences concerning the motor vehicles, it is provided that the driving licence, registration certificate, fitness certificate and insurance certificate to be produced within two weeks, time, if they were not in possession of the same. Therefore, when the manner of production of the certificates is provided in the rules, it cannot be said that the production of driving licence immediately on demand is not mandatory. To appreciate the above contention, it is necessary to quote Section 130 of the Act, which reads as follows.-
"130. Duty to produce licence and certificate of registration.-
(1) The driver of a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on demand by any police officer in uniform, produce his licence for examination:
Provided that the driver may, if his licence has been submitted to, or has been seized by, any officer or authority under this or any other Act, produce in lieu of the licence a receipt or other acknowledgment issued by such officer or authority in respect thereof and thereafter produce the licence within such period, in such manner as the Central Government may prescribe to the police officer making the demand.
(2) The conductor, if any, of a motor vehicle on any public place shall on demand by any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department authorised in this behalf, produce the licence for examination.
(3) The owner of a motor vehicle (other than a vehicle registered u/s 60) or in his absence the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle shall, on demand by a registering authority or any other officer of the Motor Vehicles Department duly authorised in this behalf, produce the certificate of insurance of the vehicle and, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness referred to in Section 56 and the permit; and if any or all of the certificates or the permit are not in his possession, he, shall, within fifteen days from the date of demand, submit photo copies of the same, duly attested in person or send the same by registered post to the officer who demanded it.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, ''certificate of insurance'' means the certificate issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147.
(4) If the licence referred to in sub-section (2) or the certificates or permit referred to in sub-section (3), as the ease may be, are not at the time in the possession of the person to whom demand is made, it shall be a sufficient compliance with this section if such person produces the licence or certificate or permit within such period in such manner as the Central Government may prescribe, to the police officer or authority making the demand:
Provided that, except to such extent and with such modifications as may be prescribed, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any person required to produce the certificate of fitness of a transport vehicle".
22. As per sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the driver to produce the driving licence immediately on demand, except when it was seized by some other authority, in which event, he has to produce the receipt of seizure. Sub-section (2) obligated the conductor to produce his licence for examination. Sub-section (3) obligated the owner of the vehicle or other persons in-charge of the vehicle to produce the certificate of registration, fitness certificate, certificate of insurance etc., of the vehicle. Sub-section (4) provided where the certificates referred in sub-sections (2) and (3), i.e., the certificate of conductor, registration certificate, insurance certificate and insurance certificate of the vehicle are not available at the time of demand, it is sufficient compliance if the same are produced within such period in such manner as the Central Government may prescribe.
23. Rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads thus:
"Production of licence and certificate of registration.--The driver or a conductor of a motor vehicle shall produce certificate of registration, insurance, fitness and permit, the driving licence and any other relevant documents on demand by any police officer in uniform or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, and if any or all of the documents are not in his possession, he shall produce in person an extract or extracts of the documents duly attested by any police officer or by any other officer or send it to the officer who demanded the documents by registered post within 15 days from the date of demand".
On a reading of Section 130 of the Act with Rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is manifest that where demand is made by a competent officer for production of the driving licence, the driver has to produce the same immediately. That shows, the driver is obligated to carry the licence with him, whenever he is driving the vehicle; whereas, in the case of the conductor and owner of the vehicle is concerned, they are given time for production because they stand on a different footing than that of the driver; for so many reasons they may not have the said documents in their possession. Even in the case of driver, if the licence is seized by some other competent authority, he can produce the acknowledgment for having seized the licence. Therefore, the manner of production of the driving licence of the driver, as provided in Section 130 of the Act, has to be read along with Rule 139 of the rules. It is a fact that Section 130 of the Act provides production of the driving licence immediately on demand; whereas the conductor and owner of the vehicle are given two weeks time to produce the relevant documents. The owner is obligated to produce the above documents to ensure that the vehicle is driven by a competent person having a valid licence or to show the identity of the driver. Therefore the manner of production provided under Rule 139 cannot be applied to the drivers who are separate class. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that when the rule provides production of driving licence within two weeks, he can produce the same within that time. We apprehend that if that proposition is accepted, Section 130(1) of the Act becomes redundant. The rule has to be interpreted in consonance with the section. If it is interpreted that the rule provides production of the driving licence within two weeks, it will be contrary to Section 130(1) of the Act. Thus, if the time provided under the rule goes beyond the time provided u/s 130 of the Act, then the rule will become ultra vires. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard.
24. The second point raised is whether the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. In the impugned notice it is stated that while the police officer on duty, in uniform, at the above mentioned place on 23-7-1994, checked the vehicle of the appellant, he failed to produce the driving licence and thus violated the provisions of the Act and the rules. Therefore, he was directed to answer the above said violation before the Traffic Court, Bangalore. As per Section 130(4) and Rule 139 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, it is contended, that the driving licence along with other documents can be produced at a later stage and therefore there is time for production of the driving licence and hence it cannot be said that there is violation on the part of the appellant. What the violation is on the part of the appellant is not mentioned in the impugned notice. It simply says that he failed to produce the driving licence etc. What is the ''etc.'' nobody can presume. It is the cardinal principle of law that the person, who is charged, must be made known the allegations made against him by specifically mentioning the same. In the present case the allegations are vague and it is not possible to answer the impugned notice. We do not know what is the meaning of ''etc.'' mentioned in the impugned ''notice. Sl. Nos. 2 to 6 in the notice are left blank. Sl. No. 1 shows ''failed to produce DL and IC, etc. Since the impugned notice is vague, on that ground itself, it has to be quashed.
25. Therefore, in view of the above stated circumstances, we hold that Section 130 of the Act is not discriminatory or arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. So we uphold the constitutional validity of Section 130 of the Act.
26. However, the impugned notice is quashed. Accordingly the writ appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.
No order as to costs.
